MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401666797 · doi:10.54097/zag2js05

Optimization of Water Level from Great Lakes Based on Vector Autoregressive Model and Goal Programming Model

2024· article· en· W4401666797 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ziheng Zhou, Binzhe Li

Bibliographic record

VenueHighlights in Science Engineering and Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoregressive modelGoal programmingComputer scienceSTAR modelEconometricsEnvironmental scienceAutoregressive integrated moving averageMathematical optimizationMathematicsMachine learningTime series

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Great Lakes, the largest group of freshwater lakes in the world, have profound impacts on residents, ecosystems, water resource utilization, shipping, and tourism industries. Addressing water level variability, this study integrates network science, goal programming algorithm, and Model Predictive Control to establish a comprehensive and adaptive model for optimizing dam adjustment mechanisms and maximizing stakeholder benefits. Initially, a Vector Autoregression Model is developed for the Great Lakes and connecting river flows toward the Atlantic Ocean to conditionally project future paths of specified variables. This model yields a network representation of the Great Lakes system. Subsequently, a Goal Programming Model is constructed to determine optimal water levels throughout the year based on extensive literature review and priority rankings. Leveraging insights from the 2014 plan, a detailed analysis is conducted on Lake Ontario water levels, focusing solely on stakeholders and influential factors. This research contributes a robust methodology for managing water levels in the Great Lakes region, providing valuable insights for sustainable water resource management.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.472
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHighlights in Science Engineering and TechnologySame topicWater resources management and optimizationFrench-language works237,207